East Park Medical Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had processes in place to ensure people were aware of the regular reviews and monitoring available to support the management of their health conditions and prescribed medicines.

Effective recall systems were used to invite people for routine reviews, and records demonstrated that appropriate follow-up action was taken when individuals did not respond to invitations.

Staff provided examples of how they supported people to make informed decisions about their care and demonstrated an understanding of the importance of respecting personal choice. We reviewed a sample of patient records and found assessments to be comprehensive and of clear value in supporting ongoing care.

Feedback from people using the service was positive, with individuals reporting that they felt cared for, that assessments were thorough, and that they were actively involved in decisions about their treatment and care. Peoples’ preferences and decisions were recorded and flagged as required. The service was able to refer people to various services within the Primary Care Network (PCN) such as social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches.

National GP Patient Survey data (2026) showed that 71% of respondents felt their needs were met at their last appointment, which was below both the national average of 90% and the local average of 89%. The results are published in July each year and this showed a decline from the 2025 results, the practice had not had the opportunity to review and analysis the survey results at the time of the assessment.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Clinical staff we spoke with were experienced and demonstrated a good understanding of relevant clinical guidance and best practice. They were able to describe how they used national guidance to support decision-making and the ongoing management of people with long-term health conditions. We saw evidence that clinical reviews were informed by appropriate guidance and completed in a structured and consistent manner. Feedback from care homes working with the service was positive, with staff reporting that people received clear advice and support from knowledgeable and experienced clinicians.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service had effective processes in place to ensure that relevant information, including care plans and clinical updates, was shared appropriately with other services involved in people's care. Feedback from external organisations, including local care homes, reflected positive working relationships, supported by clear, timely, and accessible communication.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their individual responsibilities and how these contributed to the effective running of the service. They were also aware of when to seek support or advice from colleagues and other professionals to ensure people received safe and coordinated care. The service worked collaboratively within the Primary Care Network (PCN), regularly attending meetings and contributing to local initiatives aimed at improving health outcomes.

Feedback from organisations that worked alongside the practice was positive, describing the practice as accessible, responsive, and easy to work with. They reported that staff were professional, caring, and committed to working collaboratively to ensure people received safe, effective, and coordinated care.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

At the time of the assessment, health promotion information was available near the entrance but limited due to ongoing building work. This did include posters and leaflets about local support groups and services relating to conditions such as Parkinson's disease, weight management, and pregnancy support. The local community had a significant number of people who did not speak or read English and there was no information in alternative languages.

There was limited access to support roles within the PCN, such as a social prescriber and health and wellness coach. We were provided with limited evidence of referrals to the support roles such as the social prescriber. The current premises and building work had limited space and this prevented the PCN roles from holding sessions at the practice for the local community to have access without the need to travel to alternative locations.

The service had been unable to host any local health initiative over the last few years due to the building work and lack of facilities, they did advertise events in the area but there was no evidence that these had been available in alternative languages.

On completion of the building work the service were planning on having sessions within the premises with different roles within the PCN to support people using the service and enable them to make choices regarding healthier lifestyles.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The service routinely monitored people's care and treatment to drive improvement and generally achieved positive outcomes for patients and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We completed a review of records relating to patients with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. Of all the records reviewed, 23 were identified as having the potential for a missed diagnosis and required further consideration. A sample of five records were reviewed in detail. Of these, one record was found to require further clinical review and updated coding to ensure the patient's condition was accurately reflected. The remaining four records demonstrated appropriate clinical monitoring and management, and no further action was required.

A sample of medicine review records was reviewed, and all five records examined were found to be of a good standard. Records contained clear and comprehensive documentation of discussions with patients, relevant clinical checks, and the outcomes of the review. There was evidence that thorough medication reviews had been completed, demonstrating a structured approach to ensuring medicines remained appropriate, effective, and safe for each individual.

We reviewed how effectively the service supported and monitored people living with long-term health conditions, including asthma, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). A sample of patient records demonstrated that appropriate monitoring arrangements were in place, with clear documentation of discussions between clinicians and patients regarding their ongoing care and treatment. Records showed that relevant information and advice had been provided, and systems were in place to remind patients when monitoring was due, including blood tests and routine reviews. The records reviewed indicated that the service was actively working to support patients in managing their long-term conditions and maintaining their health through regular review and follow-up.

The service had achieved four of the five national childhood immunisation targets. Uptake of the MMR vaccine for five-year-old children was below target. Staff used effective systems to monitor immunisation uptake and supported parents to make informed decisions by providing information and addressing any questions or concerns.

Cervical screening uptake was also below the national target; however, leaders and staff understood the barriers affecting participation within the local community and had implemented measures to encourage attendance, including providing information about the procedure, explaining its importance, and discussing any concerns or anxieties. The service also used space within the premises to display information and visual aids promoting cervical screening and its role in reducing the risk of cervical cancer.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the legislation and guidance relating to consent and were able to explain how they supported people to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Records showed that capacity assessments and consent discussions were clearly documented where appropriate.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions had been made in line with relevant legislation and best practice guidance. We reviewed a sample of records and found that all were appropriately coded and included the relevant ReSPECT form, DNACPR decision, and clear details of the decision-making process, including when discussions had taken place, who had been involved, and how the decision had been reached. The service worked closely with local hospices and care homes to ensure people understood their rights and were supported to make decisions based on their own wishes, preferences, and values.